POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf Kidushin 25
KIDUSHIN 24-30 (9-15 Sivan) - This week's study material has been
dedicated by Mrs. Rita Grunberger of Queens, N.Y., in loving
memory of her husband, Reb Yitzchok Yakov ben Eliyahu
Grunberger. Irving Grunberger helped many people quietly in an
unassuming manner and is dearly missed by all who knew him.
His Yahrzeit is 10 Sivan.
1) THE EVER AND BEITZIM
(a) Question (Elders): A master castrated his slave through
the Beitzim - does the slave go free?
2) WHICH PARTS OF THE MOUTH ARE CONSIDERED EXTERNAL
(b) Answer (Rav Chisda): Rebbi and Chachamim argue on this.
1. (Mishnah): A slave goes free for the loss of any of
his 24 extremal limbs - the fingers, toes, ears,
nose and Ever; by a Shifchah, the Dadim;
(c) Question: Does Rebbi really hold that he does not go free
for loss of the tongue?
2. R. Yehudah says, also a male slave goes free for the
loss of his Dadim.
3. (Beraisa): He goes free for any of these; Rebbi
says, even if castrated;
4. Ben Azai says, he even goes free for loss of the
i. Rebbi cannot mean castration of the Ever, since
that was already listed!
ii. Rather, he means castration of the Beitzim.
1. Contradiction (Beraisa - Rebbi): Reuven needed to be
sprinkled with water sanctified by the ashes of the
red heifer. The water landed on his mouth - the
sprinkling is valid; Chachamim say, it is invalid.
(d) Answer: Really, Rebbi says that a slave goes free if he
was castrated, all the more so for loss of his tongue;
ben Azai says, he goes free for the tongue, not for
i. Suggestion: When the Beraisa says 'his mouth',
it refers to his tongue.
2. Answer: No, it refers to his lips.
3. Question: Obviously, that is valid!
4. Answer: One might have thought, since the lips are
sometimes closed, they are not considered exposed,
and the sprinkling is invalid - we hear, this is not
5. Objection #1: But a Beraisa explicitly says, they
argue when the water landed on his tongue!
6. Objection #2 (Beraisa): If most of the tongue was
removed, this is a blemish (because it is an
external organ); Rebbi says, if most (of the part
which is not stuck to the jaw was removed.
(e) Question: If so, ben Azai's words should precede Rebbi's
in the Beraisa!
(f) Answer: The Tana first heard Rebbi's opinion, and taught
it; when he later heard ben Azai's opinion, he did not
want to alter his teaching, so he left Rebbi's words in
(a) (Ula): All agree that the tongue is considered external
regarding Tum'ah of a rodent - "That it will touch it",
and the tongue can be touched.
1. All agree that it is considered internal regarding
immersion - "He will wash his flesh in water";
(b) The source of the argument is the following verse: "The
Tahor will sprinkle on the Tamei...(and make him Tahor)";
i. He only need immerse what is external, as his
2. They only argue regarding sprinkling.
i. Rebbi compares it to Tum'ah; Chachamim compare
it to immersion.
1. Rebbi explains, "Sprinkling on (a part of the body
from which he could become) Tamei... will make him
(c) Question: Does Rebbi really consider the tongue as
covered regarding immersion?!
2. Chachamim expound "he will make him Tahor (by
sprinkling on a place that)...he will immerse his
clothes and immerse himself".
i. They hold that it is better to learn Taharah
(through sprinkling) from Taharah (through
immersion), and not from Tum'ah;
ii. Rebbi does not learn as Chachamim, for the
Torah interrupted ("he will immersing his
clothes") in between.
1. (Ravin): A Shifchah of Rebbi's house once found a
bone between her teeth after immersing; Rebbi made
her immerse again. (We see that we are concerned for
inside the mouth!)
(d) Answer: Water need not enter the inside of the mouth, but
it must be fitting for immersion, as R. Zeira's law.
1. (R. Zeira): Any (flour-offering) which is small
enough that it could be kneaded (with the proscribed
amount of oil in the service vessel), if it was not
kneaded, it is valid;
2. If it is so large that it could not be kneaded, it
is invalid because it was not kneaded.
(e) Tana'im argue regarding the Beitzim (if they are
considered exposed or not).
3) ACQUISITIONS OF ANIMALS
1. (Beraisa - R. Yehudah): "Mashed, crushed, uprooted
or cut" - these apply to the Beitzim (to make him a
i. Question: Do they only apply to the Beitzim,
not to the Ever?!
2. R. Eliezer ben Yakov says, they apply (only to) the
ii. Answer: Rather, they even apply to the Beitzim
(and surely to the Ever as well).
3. R. Yosi says, "Mashed or crushed" applies even to
the Beitzim; "uprooted or cut" applies only to the
(a) (Mishnah - R. Meir and R. Eliezer): A large (i.e. work)
animal may be acquired through Mesirah (handing over); a
small animal is acquired through Hagbahah (lifting);
(b) Chachamim say, a small animal is acquired through
Meshichah (pulling to one's domain).
(c) (Gemara - Rav): A large animal is acquired through
(d) Question (Shmuel): But the Mishnah says it is acquired
through Mesirah, and Rav also used to say so!
(e) Answer: Rav retracted, and holds as the following Tana:
1. (Beraisa): Chachamim say, either type of animal is
acquired through Meshichah;
(f) Question (Rav Yosef): According to R. Shimon, how does
one acquire an elephant?!
2. R. Shimon says, both are acquired with Hagbahah.
(g) Answer #1 (Abaye): Through Chalipin.
(h) Answer #2 (Abaye): By renting the place it is standing.
(i) Answer #3 (R. Zeira): He puts vessels under its feet.
1. Inference: He must hold that the vessels of the
buyer can acquire for him in the premises of the
(j) Answer #4 (R. Zeira): He gets the elephant to step on
bundles of branches (Rashi; Tosfos - he gets the elephant
to jump to catch the bundles).
2. Rejection: No, he gives this solution in a Simta (a
shoulder of the public thoroughfare).